Essay on Herbert Packer Model: Aiding the Debate on Crime Control and Due Process

Introduction

In the United States, where political debate conforms with the pledges to "get tough on crime," the legislatures lobbying for stringent actions often get themselves entangled against civil advocates on policy debates. Kaylor (2014) stated that Herbert Packer model will help to distinguish between supporters of crime control and those backing due process. Those concerned with the due process concept argue focus on offering reasonable and impartial treatment of those criminals (Packer, 1966). Based on that fact, different questions have been raised such as whether criminals have been given too many rights by the courts which the paper will attempt to resolve.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Have Criminals been given too many Rights by the Courts?

Polen (2014) argued that crime control and due process had common traits. In the crime control model, both the victim and the offender are given an extensive list of rights. Whereas, in the due process the judges, prior to making a plea, make sure that the defendant understands precisely what he/she is pleading to and what those outcomes could be on their petition (Polen, 2014). Marcus & Markman (1988) revisited the Miranda decision to identify whether the criminals were given too many rights. According to their findings, the Miranda rules are maladroit and ineffective ways of ensuring fair treatment of victims in custodial enquiring. The current difficult is to formulate superior protocols to replace the Miranda rules (Marcus & Markman 1988). For example, Congress rejected the restrictions on the use of voluntary confessions which would work in favor of criminals as victims will not be able to give finer details of what they know regarding the case (Marcus & Markman 1988). In a nutshell, basing the research on findings obtained from the Miranda rules, it is clear that criminals have been given a lot of rights by the courts

Should Courts be more Concerned with the Rights of Victims or the Right of the Offenders?

Kaylor (2014) argued that the advocates of the due process suggested for equal treatment of victims and offenders in the courts. Therefore, the courts should be concerned with providing equal and fair treatment of both the criminals and victims (Kaylor, 2014). Groenhuijsen (1996) suggested that victims should not be seen as an instrument just to help the prosecutor to hasten conviction, instead victims should be treated fairly, respectfully, and be compensated when damages have been done by the offender (Groenhuijsen, 1996) In the past, due to Miranda rules, criminals had been afforded to much rights like right to plea bargaining, being allowed to restrict voluntary confessions, whereas victims struggle to even get compensated, and some die to leave enormous hospital bills that the court fails to settle (U.S Criminal Justice System n.d).

Should Unlawfully Seized evidence be excluded from trial, even though, it is Conclusive proof of a Person's Criminal Acts?

Kaylor (2014) indicated that the exclusionary rule stemmed from the Fourth Amendment that promises; the right of citizens against illegal searches and seizures (Kaylor, 2014). Further, the "due process" section of the Fifth Amendment maintains that "no citizens will be deprived of life, freedom or right to own property without due process of law." For instance, in Boyd v. U.S. (1886), the court maintained requesting Boyd to generate personal documents as evidence desecrated his Fifth Amendment right, by compelling him to be a witness against himself. The court also ruled that the search and seizure of the private invoice were irrational under the Fourth Amendment. Based on the court ruling in Boyd v. U.S. (1886), it is clear that illegally seized proof should be excluded from a trial, even though it has convincing proof an individual's felonious acts. Kamisar (1983) provided Justice Black's argument meant to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence from being used in criminal trials. Justice Black indicated that using unlawfully seized evidence would undermine the rights of the criminal enshrined in both Fourth and Five amendments and should be disregarded, just like the way warrantless searches by police are heavily criticized (Kamisar, 1983)

Conclusion

In conclusion, both models are critical mechanisms of any criminal justice system. These models both complement and contradict each other well within the system. The due process advocates for equal, and fair treatment of both the victims and criminals during a court trial. The crime control model bases its argument on the notion of conviction, without highlighting the rights of both parties.

References

Boyd v. the U.S., 116 U.S. 616 (1886)

Groenhuijsen, M. S. (1996). Conflicts of the victim's interests and offenders' rights in the criminal justice system. International victimology, 163-176. Retrieved from: https://aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/proceedings/downloads/27-groenhuijsen.pdf

Kamisar, Y. (1983). Does (Did)(Should) the Exclusionary Rule Rest on a Principled Basis Rather than an Empirical Proposition. Creighton L. Rev., 16, 565. Retrieved from: https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1285&context=articles

Kaylor, E. H. (2014). Crime Control, Due Process, & Evidentiary Exclusion: When Exceptions Become the Rule. Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association, 2013(2013), 6. Retrieved from: https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=nyscaproceedings

Marcus, P., & Markman, S. J. (1988). Miranda Decision Revisited: Did it Give Criminals Too Many Rights?. 57 UMKC Law Review 15-27 (1988). Retrieved from: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=facpubs

Packer, H. L. (1966). The courts, the police, and the rest of us. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 57(3), 238-243. Retrieved from: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5384&context=jclc

Polen, W. (2014). Crime Control and Due Process Models. ResearchGate. 1-10

U.S Criminal Justice System: The Rights of the Suspect and the Accused: General Fair Trial Rights. Retrieved from: https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC2/MC2-7-Ch4.pdf